This is the mail archive of the
gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Default 32 bit output
- From: Kai Ruottu <karuottu at mbnet dot fi>
- To: ArtÅras Moskvinas <arturas dot moskvinas at gmail dot com>
- Cc: gcc-help at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2007 03:28:59 +0200
- Subject: Re: Default 32 bit output
- References: <1d9535c10612270113p311dbf94j3b911b7e442aea25@mail.gmail.com> <9ee2fe770612270130s1ad149dckbea09ee297080435@mail.gmail.com> <1d9535c10612270221v75bf2ad4rc5895eb1784bb5aa@mail.gmail.com> <9ee2fe770612270239i4e5aac98ka640c743502fc5fe@mail.gmail.com> <1d9535c10612270246g5808038dr45575e222aea6a63@mail.gmail.com> <9ee2fe770612270310k7478f35aqe43f5f6d24a4e05@mail.gmail.com> <1d9535c10612270624p54db906je30bf8c147f8e438@mail.gmail.com> <EDC8DDD212FEB34C884CBB0EE8EC2D91216679@namailgen.corp.adobe.com> <45997F10.2050402@mbnet.fi> <459980A8.6020106@gmail.com>
ArtÅras Moskvinas kirjoitti:
John (Eljay) Love-Jensen wrote:
The "../configure" part means it won't work, since you cannot build
GCC in the GCC source directory, nor any subdirectory thereof, and
that the GCC source should be rm'd and re-untar'd
What are the problems I should see?
It is unsupported way of doing things.
So what on earth this has to do with me? Should I expect some
"support" from someone?
Usually things works totally vice versa... The fact is that if
something doesn't work, I will fix
that at least locally! "Other do what they can do, we do what we want
to do!", is the old
saying in our family...
That "we" in the text could at least tell his/her real name, maybe the
problems didn't at all
come from sane things in the configury system but from something which
were bugs and
were later fixed... Someone had problems and thought that the problems
came from the
$build directory place.
That there could be any restrictions for the $build directory sounds
being just one bug. The
goal really cannot be that there were any. The '$GCC_SRC/met_tehemme'
is just one
possible (but obvious) choice for a '<something>/met_tehemme' $build
place and there
shouldn't be any reason to do anything in the downward '<something>',
these doings resulting
purely from the place of the $build directory itself... (The
'met_tehemme' is a Laplandian
equivalent of the english 'build').
If I will find any bugs in the use of "some specific $build place", I
will report them as bugs.
An empty $build directory anywhere, even inside the GCC sources, should
really work !